How Would You Design Fourth Edition?

[xechnao]

At it's most basic level, it goes something like this: instead of each character having a turn consisting of a move action and a standard action, all characters act simultaneously on a round divided into five segments, during the entirety of which a character can make some number of standard actions. At the beginning of each segment, the character decides whether they want to take a standard action, take a move action, or do nothing. The characters who take a standard action do so according to their speed, modified, perhaps, by their weapon (a rapier, for instance, is faster, if less brutal, than an axe). Following that, the characters who take a move action do so according to their speed. I have not yet decided what length of time a round represents--perhaps 10 seconds--though it would dictate how far each character can move with a single action and how many standard actions a character may take.

In theory, this would make movement significantly more dynamic. Characters would react to one another's movements, attempting to intercept and avoid one another. Each attack could be effectively be a spring attack. It also allows for subtle changes in balance, such as how certain spells might require their caster not move for a number of segments. It also represents much more realistically certain instances of movement. Take the aforementioned example of one character pursuing another. Instead of the pursued rocketing off in front of their adversary by some ridiculous distance, they would instead do so by a distance only about a fifth as ridiculous.

Next time: I further represent how unqualified I am by examining weapons and reach.

This is "Burning Wheel".

You still have not answered my question above though.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

A reworking of 1e with the d20 mechanic. No feats, no skills. no AOOs.

 

[Zamkaizer]

To those people who responded to my second post: I somehow figured that my idea had been attempted before. Most games I've encountered have contented themselves to a turn system, or something even more abstract.

Well then, I would adopt the HERO or Burning Wheel systems--or something resembling them--for representing time.

You still have not answered my question above though.

I assumed you were speaking rhetorically. I apologize.

Should I make the one D&D I like or the D&D the market would mostly buy ASAP? Is it about the best ruleset possible? Or is it about selling the game as the market stands right now? The D&D hobby can be various other things than a new and better ruleset. For example there are other factors such as rules familiarity.

Well, the thread concerns how you personally would prefer Dungeons & Dragons designed. Therefore your own thoughts ought to be the primary consideration in formulating your ideas. If you feel as though you should compromise some of your ideals to appeal to a larger hypothetical market and, in turn, help ensure the success of your hypothetical game, that's your prerogative.

 

[Zoatebix]

I wouldn't. I'd help James Maliszewski do it: http://maliszew.livejournal.com/tag/pulp+fantasy+d&d
-George Austin

P.S. That's not to say that I'm not interested in what Wizards is up to as much as what Maliszewski is doing...

 

[xechnao]

Well, the thread concerns how you personally would prefer Dungeons & Dragons designed. Therefore your own thoughts ought to be the primary consideration in formulating your ideas.

If this be the case then it would not be d20, nor would it carry the traditional stats (the 6 abilities, 3 saves, etch) and neither its combat would be based on TSR's "character options:combat & tactics" (as D20 is). In fact I am working on a new rulesystem right now. It is a system, that by design it is focused to involve group perspctive from character's own perspective.

 

[outsider]

I'd do it pretty much the way Wizards is doing it. Look at things that are being done a certain way purely out of tradition, and see if they can be done better. Recognize that I'm making a game, not writing a novel or trying to accurately model medieval life and combat. Severely diminish the effects of bad luck. Make sure everybody has equally useful options to use in combat. Bring back some good bits from previous editions that 3e was missing. Make low level combat less lethal.

That's my view form a macro level. I might disagree with some things WotC does on the micro level, but overall I agree with what they are trying to do with the system.

 

[xechnao]

I'd do it pretty much the way Wizards is doing it. Look at things that are being done a certain way purely out of tradition, and see if they can be done better.

Then, IMO they have not looked hard enough.

 

[WyzardWhately]

Oh, I have no doubt that my 4E would be a complete commercial failure.

But, let me go ahead and throw a few things out there.

It'd look a lot like BECMI or Rules Cyclopedia, but cleaned up. Attack Bonus instead of Thac0, high level spell damage turned down (no more d6/level, that's just too much). Many of the standard house rules would be implemented, like max HP at first level, no dying until some number of negative HP, etc. There would be skills, but more like the Cyclopedia skills: you can get some little bennies with a skill, but you generally can get by with attribute checks and a convincing background. Get rid of demihuman level limits, give humans something cool, like I said, generally clean the game up a little.

Insert some dramatic conflict resolution rules usable for social combat, sieges and other large-scale military actions, and administrating kingdoms once you hit Name level and got your tower or whatever.

Lastly, the whole game would fit in some thick paperbacks, the dimensions more resembling novels than normal game-books. This is because the game would come in a lunchbox with sweet fantasy art on the front, containing polyhedrals, a sample adventure, and a pad of character sheets. I would put less marketing effort into the web (sorry guys) and more into trying to get the damn thing into the board game aisle in Wal Mart. If Heroscape can get in there, my D&D Lunchbox set should be able to, as well.

 

[Zamkaizer]

Then, IMO they have not looked hard enough.

Hey! No getting snippy!

This thread is not intended as a vehicle for criticism of 4E in its official incarnation.

 

[Toben the Many]

Simply put, I would not have killed off some of the sacred cows they have killed off.

By and large, most of their changes I would have given a thumbs up to. But I would have made a real effort to keep some of D&D's sacred cows in the game.

Things like Saving Throws, and rolling for hit points, each class having a different BAB...these are the things I would have kept. The reason being - so that the game "feels" like D&D. So that if I grab someone who hasn't played D&D in 10 or 15 years and showed them the new system, parts of it would be recognizable to them. And truth be told, I'm not convinced that keeping just a few old school things wouldn't have stopped the game's innovation.

I'm certainly not saying nothing should change. But just keep a few old school things.

All of the things they have proposed for monsters I would have given a big thumbs up to.

I would not have added the new races they did. Adding the tiefling into the Forgotten Realms wasn't so weird when other things like gensai or aasimar were added as well. But just tieflings on their own didn't merit being out there on their own. I would not have added the dragonblooded. Also, I would not have treated the previous editions of D&D with disdain as they seem to have.